PNOC Alternative Fuels Corporation Vs.

National Grid Corporation of

the Philippines

G.R No. 224936, September 4, 2019

Caguioa, J.

Case Doctrine: The proper remedy of a defendant in an expropriation

case who wishes to contest an order of expropriation is not to file a
certiorari petition but to file an appeal of the order of expropriation.

Facts: The case stems from a Complaint for Expropriation filed by

respondent National Grid Corporation of the Philippines against PNOC
Alternative Fuels Corporation and other petitioners. NGCP claims that it is
a private corporation engaged in business of transmitting electric power
from generating plants of power producers to distributors. It alleged that, in
order for it to construct and maintain the Mariveles-Limay 230 kV
Transmission Line Project, it sought to expropriate, upon payment of just
compensation, a subject property which is a part of the Petrochemical
Industrial Park, a part of public domain originally. In 1976, by virtue of PD
949, the administration, management, and ownership of the said property
was transferred to PNOC. In 2006, the name was amended to PNOC
Alternative Fuels Corporation. In 2011, NGCP filed its Complaint seeking to
expropriate the subject property from PAFC.

During the pendency of the expropriation case, RA 10516 was

passed, expanding the use of the Petrochemical Industrial Park to include
businesses engaged in energy that will promote its best economic use.
PNOC had organized PAFC and assigned ownership property to PAFC via
Deed of Assignment. RTC ruled that NGCP has a lawful right to expropriate
the subject property upon payment of just compensation.

Issue: Whether or not PAFC was correct in filing its Rule 45 Petition
directly before the Court
Held: Yes. According to Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, if the
objections to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to
expropriate the property are overruled, the court may issue an order of
expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the
property sought to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose, upon the
payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the taking
of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. It also
states that a final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property may
be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby. Such appeal, however, shall
not prevent the court from determining the just compensation to be paid.
The proper remedy of a defendant in an expropriation case who wishes to
contest an order of expropriation is not to file a certiorari petition but to file
an appeal of the order of expropriation. Hence, PAFC had the right to
appeal the said Order of Expropriation wherein PAFC repeatedly invoked
Rule 45 in filing the appeal. The Court holds that the Petition may be
decided by dealing purely with questions of law. Under Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court, in all cases where only questions of law are raised or
involved, the appeal shall be filed directly before the Court, not via a notice
of appeal or record on appeal, but through a petition for review on certiorari
in accordance to Rule 45.